JOHN MORIARTY VS. 2363 VAN NESS AVENUE LLC et al

Complaint Information

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &SVIH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW WO 3 & BT W N

EREBEZEO SRFED B = ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As an eleventh affirmative defense, Defendants allege that, at all times, Defendants acted under legal right or in a good faith belief in the existence of a legal right.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twelfth affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff cannot prove any facts showing that Defendants® conduct was the proximate cause of any injuries or damages as alleged

in the Complaint.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a thirteenth affirmative defense, Defendants allege that by reason of Plaintiff’s own acts, omissions, representations and courses of conduct, Plaintiff is estopped from asserting, and has waived, any right to assert claims against Defendants.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a fourteenth affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Defendants were not provided a reasonable opportunity to cure defects alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint.

| FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa fifteenih affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff surrendered and

abandoned possession of the subject premises.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a sixteenth affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Defendants have actually

performed substantial rehabilitation work to the subject premises and, therefore, Plaintiff was not

damaged by the conduct of Defendants.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a seventeenth affirmative defense, Defendants allege that if hability is assessed against them, pursuant to Civil Code section 1431, et seq., Defendants shall be liable only for the amount of the non-economic damages allocated to them in direct proportion to the percentage of fault assessed against them by the tricr of fact and request that a separate judgment be rendered against

them only for that amount.

4825-1494-4795. 1 4 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS LARAMAR MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, LARAMAR URBAN

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMBLLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L~ = < -~ = U - W [ al

gfigaamuflcwmqmmamur-c

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As an eighteenth affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff failed to give adequate notice of the alleged breach of the warranty of habitability, that there was delay giving notice of a breach within a reasonable time of discovering the breach of the warranty of habitability, or when Plaintiff should have discovered the breach of the warranty of habitability, and therefore Plaintiff’s claims are barred.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

| As a mineteenth affirmative defense, Defendants allege that should Plaintiff recover from

Defendants, that Defendants are entitled to indemnification, either in whole or in part, from all

persons or entities whose negligence or fault proximately contributed to Plaintiff’s damages, if any

there were.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twentieth affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by the consent given by Plaintiff for Defendants to enter and by Civil Code section 1954, the landlord’s right of access to dwelling unit.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twenty-first affirmative defense, Defendants allege Plaintiff substantially and materially breached the obligation/contract complained of prior to the commencement of this action, which conduct extinguishes the right to maintain the instant action.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twenty-second affirmati've defense, Defendants allege that, at all times mentioned in

the Complaint, Defendants acted in good faith, with reasonable and probable cause for their

actions.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twenty-third affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each cause of action therein, is barred because Defendants fully complied with all obligations imposed by case law, statute, contract(s), or any other source.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS LARAMAR MANAGEMENT CORPORATION » LARAMAR URBAN

Jonsl

CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROOF OF SERVICE

Moriarty v. 2363 Van Ness Avenue, LLC, etal San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-12-520970

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN F RANCISCO

At the time of service, I was over 18 yearsparty to the action. My business address is 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, CA 94104-2872.

On June 10, 2014, I served the following document(s): ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS LARAMAR MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,

LARAMAR URBAN SPECIALTY PARTNERS, AND LARAMAR SF URBAN

APARTMENTS TO COMPLAINT OF JOHN MORIARTY W N A W N

I served the documents on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax numbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable):

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

11 The documents were served by the following means:

12 || Bd (BY U.S. MAIL) I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and placed the envelope or package for collection

13 and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that

14 practice, on the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the U.S. Postal Service, in a sealed

15 envelope or package with the postage fully prepaid,

16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct,

17 Executed on June 10, 2014, at San Francisco, California.

P At o

20 Carol Jensen |

4825-1494-4795 1 . ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS LARAMAR MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, LARAMAR URBAN

4825-1494-4795 1 . ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS LARAMAR MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, LARAMAR URBAN WOONJO\U‘:A(NN)—*

WOONJO\U‘:A(NN)—*

Yk <&

SERVICE LIST

Moriarty v. 2363 Van Ness Avenue, LLC, et al. San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-12-520970

Eric L. Lifschitz, Esq. Patrick J. Torsney, Esq.

Aaron H. Darsky, Esq. Law Offices of Baker & Associates

345 Franklin Strect 655 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2100

San Francisco, CA 94102 Glendale, CA 91203

T: (415) 553-6055; F: (415) 358-5647 T:(818) 638-8541; F: (818) 638-8549

Email: eric@franklinstreetiaw.com Email: ptorsney@offcofbakerandassoc.com aaron(@darskylaw.com | Co-Counsel for Defendant 2363 Van Ness

Attorneys for Plaintiff John Moriarty Avenue, LLC

Curtis F. Dowling, Esq.

Dowling & Marquez LLP

703 Market Street, Suite 1610

San Francisco, CA 94103

T: (415) 495-8500; F: (415) 495-8590 Email: curtis@dowlingmarquez.com Co-counsel for Defendant Laramar Management Corporation

2 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS LARAMAR MANAGEMENT CORFPORATION, LARAMAR URBAN

Tentative Rulings